UK Offence Report

Offences related to EU licences

article 6(3) of The Export Control (Burma Sanctions) Order 2013 (revoked)

This offence was read from the text as made, and no revised version was available, so a later revocation could not be ruled out. Check the current text at legislation.gov.uk.

What the provision says

3 A person who, having acted under the authority of an EU licence, fails to comply with

a requirement or condition of the EU licence commits an offence and may be arrested, unless—

a the EU licence was modified after the completion of the act licensed; and

b the alleged failure to comply would not have been

a failure had the EU licence not been so modified.

Text as made, from legislation.gov.uk. © Crown copyright, reused under the Open Government Licence v3.0. This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.

Who it binds, and what has to be proved

Binds
a person
Conduct
failing to comply with a notice or direction
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove that the conduct happened. This is a strict liability offence as drafted: the provision uses no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence, so there is no need to show that a person meant to do it, knew about it, or was careless.

Intention, knowledge and carelessness are irrelevant to guilt. They may still matter a great deal to sentence.

The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; other provisions of the same instrument use a mens rea word while this one does not (the Cundy v Le Cocq contrast).

What would breach article 6(3)?

These are illustrations, not law. They are generated from the provision’s own words to show the shape of the offence. Whether any particular conduct is caught depends on the full text, on any amendment since, and on the facts.

  1. Being served with a notice under the Export Control (Burma Sanctions) Order 2013 and doing nothing by the date it specifies.
  2. Doing part of what the notice requires, where it required all of it.
  3. Disagreeing with the notice and ignoring it, rather than using whatever appeal the instrument provides.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

no penalty is stated in this instrument; it may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence.

No penalty was determined from this instrument. It may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence. Absence of a figure here is not evidence that the offence carries no penalty.

Sentencing

Offences of this kind are usually sentenced under the guidelines below. This is a mapping by subject, not a finding about this provision, and the links go to a search of the Sentencing Council’s own site.

Prosecution figures

No published per-offence figure was found for this provision, and it could not be matched to a Ministry of Justice offence code. Offences created by statutory instrument very largely do not have one. Absence of a figure is not evidence that the offence is unused.

Status and lifecycle

Current status
Status not determined
Made
31 July 2013
In force from
28 August 2013
Extent
Not stated

How this was established: read from the text as made; no revised version available, so later revocation could not be ruled out.

What the instrument is for

(This note is not part of the Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

This Order makes provision for the enforcement of the remaining trade sanctions against Myanmar/Burma specified in Council Regulation (EU) No 401/2013 (“the Burma Regulation”) (OJ L 121, 3.5.2013, p1) repealing Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 (OJ L 66, 10.3.2008, p1) concerning restrictive measures in respect of Myanmar/Burma, which included a range of restrictive measures many of which have now been lifted. The trade sanctions which remain in force include prohibitions on the sale, supply or transfer of equipment which may be used for internal repression and prohibitions on the provision of technical and financial assistance in relation to military activities and equipment which may be used for internal repression. Article 2 and the Schedule revoke the Export Control (Burma) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1098) and its subsequent amendments (S.I. 2010/1675 and article 4 of S.I. 2012/2125), which this Order replaces. Articles 3 to 9 set out the enforcement of the trade restrictions of the Burma Regulation. Articles 4 to 7 create new offences in relation to those prohibitions and article 8 specifies the penalties. Article 9 provides for the ancillary provisions which apply to the enforcement of customs and excise legislation to apply also to the enforcement of this Order. Article 10 requires the Secretary of State to review the operation and effect of articles 3 to 9 of the Order and publish a report within five years after this article comes into force and within every five years after that. Following a review it will fall to the Secretary of State to consider whether the Order should remain as it is, or be revoked or amended. A further instrument would be needed to revoke the Order or to amend it. A regulatory impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as it has no or minimal impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies. A copy of the Explanatory Memorandum is published alongside the Order on www.legislation.gov.uk. Further information is available from the Export Control Organisation, BIS, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0ET and on BIS website (www.bis.gov.uk).

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same instrument

How this was identified as an offence

Everything above rests on the judgement that this provision creates a criminal offence, rather than mentioning one. That judgement is made by rule, from the words of the provision, and this is the rule that made it — with a confidence of 0.92.

Basis
the provision says a person “commits an offence”
Confidence
0.92 of 1.00

A provision that states a penalty for an offence created elsewhere can read very like one that creates an offence, and the rules can mistake the one for the other. If the text quoted above sets a penalty for something made an offence by another provision, treat the classification on this page with that in mind, and read the instrument.

Check the source